Should the food industry foot some of the costs the NHS incurs through heart disease?

Question

Let's face it. I read labels. I have to because of food intolerances. It's made me aware of how much hydrogenated fat is still found in foods. Scientific evidence says that these fats lead to heart disease.
And in the papers we are being told that by the year 2020 the NHS will be cracking at the seams with people suffering from heart disease.
If primary industries have to pay for pollution caused to the environment ... why should the food industry be immume from paying towards the cost of treating conditions that are caused by their products?
Should they be taxed for contributing to the epidemic of heart disease that awaits the NHS by 2020?
I know the consumer has a choice. In my case i choose to pay more for the non-hydrogenated variety. Not everyone can afford that choice. Should the food industry have a choice?

Blackb: Bet you don't have children? or if you do does the misses do the shopping? Ever tried to explain to a 3-year old why they can't have the sweets with the cartoon characters?

Answer 1

No, just proper labeling.

Answer 2

No, I think that is too tenuous a link. Lets make people responsible for their own habits. Smokers have to be. The problem with what you propose is that it could be extended, in principle, to so many other areas. You can't, at any point in time, expect the food industry to be expert regarding the possible affect of everything that goes in our food. We have the complication of GM crops (promoted by the Government) pesticides which growers may or may not use. We even have additional sulphites put into our wine. I think that the food industry are trying hard to improve things, not least, because they are afraid of being sued. They are removing hydrogenated fats.

Don't believe the scare stories coming out of the NHS, they are desperately looking for additional funds, despite the fact that they are inefficient (like all public bodies) and, without reform, will go on wasting additional funds put into it. They are finding all sorts of ways and excuses for not treating people.

I don't know if you are including food retailers (including small shops) in your definition of 'food industry', but they already do contribute via taxation. Surely, any additional surcharges will be passed on in the form of price rises.

I am a little concerned by your proposal as a matter of principle, because it further empowers and already totalitarian government to take further power unto itself. Before long you will end up with total state control.

Answer 3

There is a good case for pricing junk food out of the market with punitive taxes. No government has ever attempted hypothecation of taxation, so there is no hope that this revenue will be applied to the NHS. (If this were done, there would be no congestion on the roads and smokers would receive top class treatment for smoking related complaints.)
The current caveat emptor approach lets those that take the easy path shorten their lives and while pushing up NHS costs, reduce ultimate old age pension drawn.
Perhaps the best solution is for the NHS not to treat obesity related conditions as these are self inflicted injuries by people who lack the will power to eat some vegetables instead of a burger.

Answer 4

You are aware of the hydrogenated fats because of your food intolerance. I suspect others are the same. I also suspect many people simply do not care, but none are that ignorant about healthy living - it is simply not possible.

Newspapers and magazines highlight the importance of healthy eating, with supplements advertising health products or new diets on an almost daily basis.
You go to the doctor for a sprained ankle but all they are interested in is how much tobacco and alcohol you consume in a week.
“How many portions of fruit or vegetables do the Government suggest we eat a day?” That question came up on Junior Mastermind (children's quiz) not so long ago, suggesting it is common knowledge.
We all know the answer.

Also, with supermarkets offering their own brands at reduced prices, healthy foods are now no more expensive than the not so healthy.

I do not understand the point you are trying to make about children.
Every parent has a responsibility for their child's welfare and this includes what they ingest, therefore yes, it is easy to say no to a three-year-old when it comes to wanting unhealthy foods.
There are so many "cartoon characters" begging for children's attentions that it becomes a necessity to be strong.

A tantrum... so what? Better that than poor health. Saying no to what Mickey Mouse and friends are offering is easy.

Someone else has mentioned blaming car companies for crash victims.
I think this is a good point.
Should the cigarette companies pay for research in lung disease, the drink industry compensate for liver disease…?

How about airlines contributing toward victims of deep vein thrombosis?

Companies put products out there - they do not force us to use them.

Tobacco companies put warnings on their products. Do you propose that food companies put pictures of diseased hearts on their products? It would certainly curb my appetite but many people would ignore them just as many people still smoke.

The simple thing is this: live how you want and face the consequences.

You say it yourself: "... the consumer has a choice."

Unlike tobacco products, food companies list everything on the packet so you know what you are consuming. You realise that you have those labels to read, as do others. It is up to you what you do with the information.

Realise though, that the "primary industries" having to pay for pollution do not offer the consumer a choice - a factory billowing thick smoke into the environment 24/7 is vastly different to a product waiting on a shelf.

Answer 5

No, or not until it can be proved that food companies make food addictive (other than creating a mild psychotropic addiction eg. as with chillies), which will be impossible as food is a necessity for survival rather than, as with cigarettes, a stupid choice for a toxic non-essential item.

However the methods of advertising, packaging, labelling foods needs to be addressed further so that even the dimmest within the population can make correct food choices after the bare minimum of education.

We should ensure that foods are labelled clearly...and not let the psychologist consultants to the Marketing department decide that the fat content should always be labelled in green no matter how hazardous the levels!!

Answer 6

Lets stop shifting blame if most people read labels and made choices as you do there would not be a problem. People should have a pro-actively choose their products, however so many want cheap and artifical you can't blame companies for giving them what they want. I think all this legislating against choices deminishes our value as Humans we should choose and if more people took the time to know a bit about their choices we'd all be happier healthier and better informed. This seems like a prefered option to fining the food industry for providing what consumers want. Due to attitudes luike yours many have had to remove or at least reduce unhealthy additives including hydrogenated fat from products. Inform people to make a choice an companies will follow, legislate and peole feel their choices eroded and resent measures intended to help.

Answer 7

If you really knew what you are talking about then you could make a statement like this! Do you know what is meant by enrichment? Guess not! It means that the mill that produced the flour added iron or malt in which is a type of sugar! Many bread company's need different ingredients in their flour to get the dough to turn out a certain way for their use! Iron is needed for the body and if you are a woman you should know that this helps the body in many ways including the production of strong red blood for the body! Bleaching flour is for looks and does not contaminate the flour except to raise the acidic nature of the flour! Read biology and learn something!

Answer 8

Excellent idea. Tobacco companies are paying billions of dollars towards health care so the food industry should do the same. Another school of though I like better is that people should accept responsibility for their own decisions. If you indulge in harmful things you should accept the consequences. The government has looked into the possibility of a "sugar tax" being imposed on all sweet products that you would buy.These means all of us will pay. Ridiculous.

Answer 9

What about personal responsibility?Doesn't that exist anymore? It seems that everytime something goes wrong it is always someone else's fault. People blame the government for not taking care of them , Mcdonalds for making the coffee too hot or gaining weight because they eat a biggie burger, biggie fries and biggie shakes three times a day and gain weight. The tabacco company because they are smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 40 years and now have lung cancer. What about educating yourself by reading the labels on food products and the warnings on the packs of cigatettes? Come on everyone, let's start taking care of ourselves instead of expecting everyone else to do it for us.

Answer 10

No, of course not. The food industry provides what people want, and the labelling is very clear, if people bother to read it. In any case, most of the food that is considered bad for us is quite OK in moderation (chocolate eclairs for example). The real question should be: should people who stuff their faces and compromise their own health foot some of the costs incurred by the NHS?

Answer 11

no
possibly the individual or parent / guardian should pay extra. this policy is already being rpatised in the NHS...... people broight in as a result of a vehicle incident have charges levied to their insurance company. there is effective postcode rationing already, there is talk of refusing treatement to the obese and to smkoers

lets face it: its not the food per se thats the problem.... moderate consumption of virtually any food stuff isnt a probem.. its over reliance on fatty foods or junk foods and not enough so called 'health' foods.